Connect with us


BIG STORY

We Are Selling Petrol At Half The Landing Cost, But It Is Not Subsidy — NNPC

Published

on

The Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Ltd has revealed that it is selling petrol, also known as premium motor spirit (PMS), at half the landing cost.

According to Umar Ajiya, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of NNPC, the company is bearing the “shortfall” rather than subsidy.

The official pump price of petrol is around N600/litre, while the landing cost is approximately N1,200/litre.

Ajiya confirmed to Bloomberg that NNPC incurred a cost of N7.8 trillion to cover the “shortfall” in the first seven months of the year.

Typically, subsidy refers to selling a product below its cost price, which appears to be the case here, despite Ajiya’s distinction.

According to The Cable, in official communication between NNPC and the president, the word “subsidy” is used extensively to explain the “shortfall”.

Earlier report had it that President Bola Tinubu approved a request by NNPC to utilise the 2023 final dividends due the federation to pay for the subsidy.

However, Ajiya sought to deny the story during a media briefing on the company’s 2023 audited financial statements earlier on Monday, said the company was only “taking care of the shortfall on petrol importation between it and the federation”.

He, thereafter, told Bloomberg that NNPC is owed N7.8 trillion ($4.9 billion) by the government in subsidy debts from January to July 2024.

But in his “clarification” to NAN, Ajiya said subsidy has not been paid to any marketer in the last nine years, understandably because NNPC is the sole importer of petrol via contracts with suppliers.

“In the last eight to nine years, NNPC Ltd. has not paid anybody a dime as a subsidy; no one has been paid kobo by NNPC Ltd. in the name of subsidy,” Ajiya said.

“No marketer has received any money from us by way of subsidy.

“What has been happening is that we have been importing PMS, which has been landing at a specific cost price, and the government tells us to sell it at half price.

“So the difference between the landing price and that half price is a shortfall.

“And the deal is between the Federation and NNPC Ltd., to reconcile, sometimes they give us money, so there is no money exchanging hands with any marketer in the name of subsidy.”

He was silent, however, on how much of the $4.9 billion could have gone into the federation account if NNPC was not paying for the “shortfall”.

It is thought that the government of the All Progressives Congress (APC) seeks to distance itself from the use of the term because “subsidy scam” was one of the campaign weapons it used to dislodge the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from power in 2015.

  • NNPC Is Being Disingenuous — Waiziri Adio

Waiziri Adio, executive director of Agora Policy think-tank and former executive secretary of the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), accused the national oil company of being disingenuous in its explanations.

“NNPCL’s waffling on petrol subsidy is so disingenuous. Oh, it is not subsidy, but a shortfall/PMS fx differential. Same difference. No subsidy was paid to any marketer. Has anyone said NNPCL paid subsidy to marketers and is it even within their remit to pay subsidy to marketers?” he posted on his X handle.

“Former PPPRA was charged with approving subsidy for marketers and NNPC. Ministry of Finance was paying marketers after verification of claims. Only difference with NNPC was that it deducted its subsidy and other claims from money for crude given to it for domestic use (DCA).

“It is not NNPCL’s responsibility, by practice or by law, to pay subsidy to marketers. That answer to a question not asked is at best a hollow attempt at deflection.

“Saying there is no subsidy because selling PMS below landing cost is a transaction between the company and the Federation (repaid or netted off) is a lame play with words that take everyone for a moron.

“NNPCL can use this free advice: when in a hole, stop digging.”

BIG STORY

JUST IN: Super Eagles Legendary Goalkeeper Peter Rufai Dies At 60

Published

on

The Super Eagles have honoured former Nigerian goalkeeper and 1994 Africa Cup of Nations winner, Peter Rufai, following reports of his passing.

In a statement posted on Thursday via X, the national team referred to Rufai, popularly called “Dodo Mayana,” as an iconic figure in Nigerian football whose impact will always be remembered.

“Forever in our hearts, Dodo Mayana. We mourn the passing of legendary Super Eagles goalkeeper, Peter Rufai, a giant of Nigerian football and a 1994 AFCON champion,” the statement said.

The statement praised Rufai’s outstanding career, highlighting his remarkable performances and influence beyond football.

“Your legacy lives on between the sticks and beyond. Rest well, Peter Rufai,” it added.

Rufai was a key member of the celebrated Nigerian team that won the 1994 AFCON and qualified for the country’s first-ever FIFA World Cup in the same year.

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

When Lagos Drew The Line On Plastic Waste, It Chose The Harder, Better Path — By Babajide Fadoju

Published

on

On July 1, 2025, the Lagos State Government began full enforcement of its long-announced ban on single-use plastics less than 40 microns in thickness. These included styrofoam food packs, polystyrene cups, plastic straws, and thin carrier bags. This was not just another policy roll-out. It marked a significant environmental turning point for one of Africa’s most densely populated cities.

The Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr. Tokunbo Wahab, had spent months leading the charge. At every forum and press briefing, he maintained that the state would not shift the enforcement date. And when that date arrived, the government kept its word. What many had assumed would be delayed or softened became a reality across markets, food vendors, eateries, and shopping outlets. Lagos had drawn the line.

The decision did not happen overnight. In January 2024, the government had announced the ban on styrofoam products, warning that other forms of non-biodegradable single-use plastics would follow. Manufacturers, food service businesses, and packaging companies were given an 18-month window to adapt. By January 2025, after multiple consultations with key industry players including the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), the Restaurants and Food Services Proprietors Association of Nigeria (RFSPAN), and the Food and Beverage Recycling Alliance (FBRA), the government granted a six-month extension. That grace period ended on June 30, 2025. The very next day, enforcement began.

Commissioner Wahab consistently emphasised that the decision was not driven by convenience or popularity, but by necessity. Lagos, with its coastal geography, had become especially vulnerable to the effects of plastic pollution. Thin plastics and styrofoam containers were not just littering the streets; they were choking the city’s drainage systems, causing repeated flooding, and disrupting the natural flow of water across low-lying areas. The government had been forced to spend billions clearing clogged drains, dredging canals, and evacuating waste. These were resources that could have supported education, housing, or healthcare. Continuing with the status quo would have been reckless.

Across the world, over 70 countries had adopted similar bans or restrictions. Some had introduced taxes on plastic bags. Others had outright prohibited the use of certain materials. Lagos joined that global conversation not to make a statement, but to solve a real problem. For years, markets like Mile 12 and Oyingbo had been overwhelmed by plastic waste. Waterways like the Ogun River and Lagos Lagoon had carried tonnes of microplastics downstream. With each rain, the damage multiplied.

The Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) played a central role in translating policy into action. In the weeks leading up to enforcement, LAWMA organised community outreach campaigns, market sensitisation, and stakeholder meetings. Waste collectors were briefed on how to spot banned items and how to separate recyclable materials. LAWMA officials worked directly with traders, waste vendors, and informal sector recyclers to ease the transition. Educational materials were printed in English, Yoruba, and Pidgin to reach as many residents as possible.

Despite all these efforts, resistance remained. Some business owners argued that alternatives were more expensive. Others claimed they had not received enough notice. But Wahab was unflinching. He stated clearly that any manufacturer or distributor who had failed to find a safer, eco-friendly alternative after 24 months was simply not ready to comply. The policy had been public knowledge since 2024. The time for excuses had passed.

There was also concern about job losses, especially in the plastic production and distribution chain. The government responded by highlighting the opportunity for innovation. Biodegradable packaging, paper alternatives, reusable food containers, and local compostable materials were now in demand. New jobs could be created in eco-friendly product design, waste sorting, and recycling infrastructure. Wahab noted that Lagos would support businesses willing to shift in this direction, but would no longer subsidise pollution in the name of economic convenience.

The path Lagos chose was not the easiest, but it was the most responsible. It took political will to push through a decision that affected thousands of daily transactions, from street food sales to major retail chains. It took environmental clarity to say no when delay would have been more comfortable. And it took administrative strength to follow through on enforcement, when doing nothing would have been easier.

Now, the hard part continues. Enforcement must be consistent. Public awareness must be sustained. And alternatives must remain within reach of ordinary citizens. But with this bold step, Lagos signalled that it would no longer be held hostage by harmful habits and unchecked commercial practices.

The story of July 1, 2025, was not just about plastic. It was about leadership. It was about vision. And it was about protecting a city that refuses to collapse under the weight of its own waste.

Continue Reading

BIG STORY

AMCON Sells Ibadan DisCo For N100bn

Published

on

The Asset Management Company of Nigeria has confirmed the sale of the Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company.

Gbenga Alake, managing director and chief executive officer of AMCON, revealed the details of the transaction during a media briefing with journalists on Thursday.

In April 2024, the federal government announced plans to sell five electricity distribution companies managed by banks and AMCON.

Ibadan DisCo, which was under AMCON’s management, is among the five companies listed for sale. Others include the Abuja Electricity Distribution Company, Benin Electricity Distribution Company, Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company, and Kano Electricity Distribution Company.

During the briefing, Alake stated that the company was sold for N100 billion.

He mentioned that AMCON would soon transfer the company to the preferred bidder.

“Today, I announce to you that Ibadan DisCo has been sold. When we came in, it has already been sold. It was sold for how much?” Alake said.

“We got in and said no, it cannot be. We said they should go and submit a new offer that we were not going to sell for that.

“At the end of the day, we got almost double of what Ibadan DisCos was going to be sold for.”

He explained that the sale has sparked legal disputes, with “so many interests now fighting and writing”.

Alake maintained that despite the matter being in court, AMCON remains confident that the process was properly handled.

“We have sold it… and whatever is still happening in court, we will face it,” he said.

On May 15, reports emerged that the African Initiative Against Abuse of Public Trust, a civil society group, had filed a suit at the federal high court in Abuja against AMCON, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and Ibadan DisCo over an alleged planned sale of a 60 percent stake in the company for $62 million.

The civil society group, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/866/2025, described the sale as “secretive and illegal,” claiming the price was “corruptly undervalued”.

The group also argued that the transaction would result in a $107 million loss compared to the $169 million paid for the same stake during the 2013 privatisation of Ibadan DisCo.

Continue Reading



 

Join Us On Facebook

Most Popular